Mothballed Brexit security post at Portsmouth port will cost almost £2m a year - to remain empty

The security checkpoint facility - which the government demanded was built at Portsmouth International Port following Brexit - was meant to open in July, with a workforce of 67 employees.

But in an 11th-hour decision the government scrapped its use, saying physical checks on animal, plant and forest imports would be delayed until the end of 2023.

However, it has left the future of the costly facility in limbo, with the port’s owner, Portsmouth City Council, unable to use it.

In a damning letter to Britain’s director of border readiness Stephen Webb, port boss Mike Sellers warned the fiasco would cost Portsmouth £1,845,108 in costs - with £500,000 being amassed between now and October.

A delegation from the Cabinet Office’s Border Trade and Brexit Opportunities Team visited the port more than a month ago. However, they have yet to provide any ‘support’ to the facility, Mr Sellers claimed.

With the threat of legal action now looming to force the government’s hand and stump up millions to Portsmouth, Mr Sellers wrote: ‘You kindly offered to help the port mitigate the significant costs to the border control post (BCP) due to the government’s decision to stop the import controls on EU freight and move towards a new target operating model from the end of 2023, but there has been no support nor clarity.

‘In the meantime, the port continues to lose money on the BCP which we expect the government to recompense as it has been due to government prevarication and indecision preventing the port from mitigating losses incurred from government policy changes.’

Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson, leader of the city council, accused Westminster of ‘ignoring Portsmouth’, and said: ‘This is a government of cloth ears.’

And Portsmouth South MP, Stephen Morgan, was left indignant with rage and launched a vicious political broadside on the Tory regime in London.

‘This Conservative government’s incompetence has left our city facing an eye-watering bill for post-Brexit infrastructure that now won't be needed,’ the Labour MP said.

‘Portsmouth Port’s profits help fund local services, and the impact of this unexpected and unfair bill will be felt across the city unless the government takes responsibility for its short-sightedness.

‘At a time when families in Portsmouth and across the country are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis, this government wasting almost £30m of taxpayers’ money is unforgivable.

‘This is a total farce. Ministers must take long overdue action to compensate our city.’

City leaders and port officials hope to be able to convert the 38,000sq ft unit building into an industrial complex or office space.

However, Cllr Vernon-Jackson said this was not possible with the current conditions stipulated by the government on the building’s use.

He said: ‘We could use this tomorrow if the government said we could but the contract says we can’t.

‘It’s ludicrous. It beggars belief. It was built exactly to the specifications that the government ordered. This is exactly built as they wanted it and told us we had to do. The least they can do is pay for it and pay for the running costs of this useless white elephant.’

The government claims it is trying to help.

A spokesman said: ‘We are always open to considering new ways to reduce burdens for traders, ease flow at the borders, and cut costs to help traders with cost of living pressures.

‘That’s why the remaining import controls on EU goods will no longer be introduced this year - saving British businesses up to £1 billion in annual costs. Instead, traders will continue to move their goods from the EU to GB as they do now. The ports industry across the country supports our decision.

‘We are currently working with ports, including Portsmouth port, on an individual basis to assess the impact of the July import controls decision, and to address any issues or concerns they may have. This includes seeking to identify ways of preventing unnecessary additional capital cost and minimising ongoing costs.’